List graph edges with filtering, deterministic sorting, and pagination to isolate relevant connections.
엣지 목록 — filter 로 좁히고 결정적 정렬 + 페이지네이션.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | 엣지 필터 DSL ([6]) — 예: 'relation == "calls" AND weight > 1'. 엣지 필터에 노드 group function(degree 등)을 쓰면 명확한 에러로 거부된다. | |
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses deterministic sorting and pagination, which are behavioral traits. However, with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or potential error conditions (beyond what the schema hints at). This is a moderate disclosure but leaves safety and failure modes implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise Korean sentence that front-loads the purpose and key capabilities. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately brief for a straightforward list operation. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (so return values are defined elsewhere) and the tool is a simple list operation with no required parameters, the description covers the core behaviors: filtering, deterministic sorting, and pagination. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it could benefit from explicit usage guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only the 'filter' parameter has a description). The top-level description mentions 'filter' and pagination but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or semantics. It relies on the schema for filter DSL details, which is acceptable, but it does not compensate for the undocumented 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'edge list' (엣지 목록) and specifies that it supports filtering, deterministic sorting, and pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_nodes or list_findings, leaving no ambiguity about the resource and operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a different tool (e.g., list_nodes, search) would be more appropriate, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. The context of siblings is not leveraged.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.